It has a deeper significance than just royal, however. Since Spain, historically, has been ruled by monarchs (and the monarchy still exists today, in much the same way as in Britain, merely figureheads as opposed to actual political leaders) the royal names were given to teams that had received a charter from the King of Spain. If you look at the teams across Spain, there are many who have received this designation, not just Real Madrid.

Real Mallorca, Real Zaragoza, Real Club Deportivo La Coruña, Real Betis... There are many, not just in the first division in Spain, but sprinkled throughout the various divisions of Spanish soccer. That is a bit larger definition of what Real means, especially in the context of Spanish soccer.

What criteria was used to designate a team Real? Why did some teams get it and others not?

Click to expand...

Mostly what happened early on, before Alfonso XIII resigned in the early 30s, was that teams simply requested the designation from the crown, and it was usually given. Thus teams now with the name all existed or had the designation before the II Republic in the 30s. As I don't think the crown has given out any such designation since the restoration of constitutional monarchy, a team born since the 30s would never (strong word, but someone show I'm wrong) be called Real.

It is not normal for two teams from the same city to be Real, though offhand I am not sure if Sevilla is Real along with Betis. Perhaps this has to do with there not often being two strong teams from a single city before the end of the monarchy in the 30s.

In Spain there are only two teams that can be abbreviated as Real. "El Real" is Real Madrid, and "la Real" is Real Sociedad, as the later term "sociedad" is a feminine noun. Thus references to Real are not really correct, it should be "EL Real", with respect for the team from San Sebastian, as they too, without the article, are Real.

just to throw another spanner in the works, what does 'SAD' mean after a teams name. many of the clubs obtain this, for example 'real betis....SAD'

Click to expand...

Sociedades Anónimas Deportivas

Without going into mass detail its like having a club being an PLC like in england.....

------------------

The Spanish Sport Law of October 15th1990 proposed a change inprofessional football teams legal system, in order to avoid clubs’ growing debts.Chairmen and administrators of Spanish teams reached an agreement with Spanish Government, through Spanish Professional Football League (Liga deFútbol Profesional, LFP), to eliminate clubs’ debts. Earlier, in 1985, there hadbeen an attempt to achieve this objective when Government and LFP signed the Restructuring Plan (Plan de Saneamiento ), the purpose was a signal failure.The regulation of professional players’ market changed by 1006 Decree, published in 1985. Although TV revenues began to have some importance inteams’ total revenues, the expenses that many clubs incurred to pay stadiumworks, as a consequence of World Football Championship in 1982, and other factors made that teams did not fit their budgets and, in general, Spanishfootball ran up more and more large debts.For that, given the Sport Law of 1990 and the Decree of July 15th1991, theSpanish Government obligated professional football teams that had losses totransform from sport clubs into sport stock companies (Sociedades Anónimas Deportivas, SAD). Only four clubs playing in Spanish First or Second Divisiondid not transform into SAD: Athletic de Bilbao, Barcelona, Osasuna and Real Madrid. The rest of teams had to be transformed into SAD at the end of 1991/92season. To guarantee chairmen and boards of directors’ responsibility, theadministrators warrant a percentage of the budget (5%). These guarantees ought to be paid by the warrantors if their teams have losses. Chairmen andgoverning boards of the four clubs that did not transform into SAD also have a similar guarantee.At that time, it seemed that the financial problems of Spanish footballclubs could be solved, because LFP signed with Spanish Sports Council
(Consejo Superior de Deportes, CSD) a second Restructuring Plan in 1991.

That is an excellent question. I am no legal expert, but the deal is that the new law required all pro clubs to become SAD if they were in fact privately owned entities. And that was the majority of them. Just a few are owned by the club members (socios), and they were exempted from this law as technically every member is a shareholder. I think in Spain top flight the teams exempted now are Madrid, Barça, Bilbao and Osasuna, the first three for sure, and pretty sure about the team from Pamplona. In their cases I don't know the legal denomination, but the club board members have to put up funds as guarantors of the budget (thus legally responsible for any financial wrongdoings), and then what happens is that a number of members are designated as "committed members", carrying some legal/financial responsibility with that. Not sure if they have to put up guarantees, but at Barça for example only some do, as the club decided that some members who did not have the normal, minimum financial capacity be designated to go to semi-restricted general meetings for budgetary questions and vote on overall finances (not day to day).

Finally, I think that since board members are effectively not hired by the Ltd Company or PLC, they cannot receive a regular salary. Of course some costs are covered, but I know that at Barça noone on the board is paid. What all these clubs will do, however, is hire outside non-board staff to run certain aspects of the club and these people are indeed paid.

Think of it as a golf club with an elected board, chosen by a general vote of all members (excluding minors) who are not paid, accountable to all the members, and then go out and hire the staff to run the club on an administrative and sporting level.

BTW, Bilbao just had their election for president, and Madrid elected Pérez for another 4 year term just this summer.

That is an excellent question. I am no legal expert, but the deal is that the new law required all pro clubs to become SAD if they were in fact privately owned entities. And that was the majority of them. Just a few are owned by the club members (socios), and they were exempted from this l.......

Click to expand...

thanks for th einfo, is very interesting. seen as this topic has turned into the 'legal/poltical' side of the clubs i have another Q. once i was told that barca do not wear a sponsor on their shirt because of the socios owning the club or sumthing (it was one of those drunken nites) but can somebody clarify why in fact they never wear a sponsor

once i was told that barca do not wear a sponsor on their shirt because of the socios owning the club or sumthing (it was one of those drunken nites) but can somebody clarify why in fact they never wear a sponsor

Click to expand...

I'm sure plenty of Barça fans can give a better answer than me , but the quick answer is because they can afford not to have sponsorship. These days, this may be less true than that it's a question of pride at not having to sully their shirts with advertising (other than the kit manufacturers, that is).

I'm sure plenty of Barça fans can give a better answer than me , but the quick answer is because they can afford not to have sponsorship. These days, this may be less true than that it's a question of pride at not having to sully their shirts with advertising (other than the kit manufacturers, that is).

Barça considered getting a sponsor on their shirt for this year, but decided not to (as someone pointed out, they can afford not to). Overall I would say the main reason Barcelona and Bilbao dont have sponsors is to not "spoil" the "sacred" colors of the shirt with advertisements.

Barça considered getting a sponsor on their shirt for this year, but decided not to (as someone pointed out, they can afford not to). Overall I would say the main reason Barcelona and Bilbao dont have sponsors is to not "spoil" the "sacred" colors of the shirt with advertisements.

Click to expand...

Not to mention that both (Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao) are the representative clubs for their regions, Catalunya and Pais Vasco (the Basque Country), and considering those are the two regions who seem to desire the most autonomy from the rest of Spain, it's not surprising that they would hold on to a tradition like the lack of corporate sponsors on their jerseys as a sign of greater independence. It's a pride and nationalism thing, 100%.

Many other clubs do tie their jersey sponsors in with their regions or cities, though. Malaga has had Unicaja (bank based in Malaga) as their main jersey sponsor and has had the Tourism Board of Andalucia as their second jersey sponsor. I believe Andalucia has also sponsored Sevilla's jersey, and maybe Real Betis' as well. I'm pretty sure Pikolin is a mattress factory based in Zaragoza, so their sponsorship of Real Zaragoza is also a regional representation.

Not to mention that both (Barcelona and Athletic Bilbao) are the representative clubs for their regions, Catalunya and Pais Vasco (the Basque Country), and considering those are the two regions who seem to desire the most autonomy from the rest of Spain, it's not surprising that they would hold on to a tradition like the lack of corporate sponsors on their jerseys as a sign of greater independence. It's a pride and nationalism thing, 100%.

Click to expand...

Very good point which I neglected to mention. The shirt of those teams is as sacred as a national team jersey...hence, no sponsor.

it doesnt to seem like it will be a very strong business relationship, if it is just superficial then the name is a joke, actually if it is anything save for real madrid owning part of the time then it is a joke.